Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Dan Culbertson <danculb@b...> wrote:
> > One thing I did notice on ColorVision's site is that Profiler Pro
> > includes Profiler RGB and CMYK, which can use a scanner in place of
> > the spectrophotometer. Is this even worth considering even as an
> > interim first step?
> 
> Tyler has been trying that out and he had some success with it - but I think
> he came to the conclusion that there is a good bit of difficulty in the
> shadows with using a scanner based profiler.  Still, could be a good
> starting point.  Tyler?

The test was very quick and superficial. My scanner simply loses any detail above around 10% or more on EAM, which is 
what I chose to do the test with for some odd reason, it seems to fluoresce like crazy. Photospectrometer handles it ok, not 
scanners.
So Profiler had no useful highlight info for any of the inks. Since the preview had blown out hightlights, I simply made curves 
for the rest of each ink's range based on it and did the highlight areas some way I though would be ok.I was very suprised 
how well it turned out, and have been meaning to try another test on a better paper. I was really just curious and didn't 
take it very far. Actually the shadows and mids were pretty good, highs were the problem.
It was the Profiler Pro CMYK quad preview profile I had big shadow problems with, and need to find ink setup settings that 
will be a bit easier on it. But that's another test...
Someone (Todd?) posted who had Profiler RGB that they couldn't make it work, I'm not sure why. Indications were it could, 
and scanner gamut problems aren't an issue here. Anyone with WiziWIG or EZcolor should give it a try too, may choke 
though.
Tyler